Comments on: The Bush Frame: Us vs. Them; Good vs. Evil; Intentions vs. Consequenceshttps://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/the-bush-frame-us-vs-them-good-vs-evil-intentions-vs-consequences/
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:21:07 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: Imagine: On Bravado and Humility, 11 September 2014 | the becoming radicalhttps://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/the-bush-frame-us-vs-them-good-vs-evil-intentions-vs-consequences/#comment-83285
Thu, 11 Sep 2014 11:56:21 +0000http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/?p=4990#comment-83285[…] “our,” “we,” “we”—the Obama frame is essentially the us v. them narrative offered by Bush, used once again to justify military action as long as it is ours against […]
]]>By: Divided Loyalties Symposium « The Situationisthttps://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/the-bush-frame-us-vs-them-good-vs-evil-intentions-vs-consequences/#comment-22291
Fri, 11 Feb 2011 02:28:17 +0000http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/?p=4990#comment-22291[…] “The Bush Frame: Us vs. Them; Good vs. Evil; Intentions vs. Consequences,” […]
]]>By: Divided Loyalties Symposium « The Situationisthttps://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/the-bush-frame-us-vs-them-good-vs-evil-intentions-vs-consequences/#comment-22290
Fri, 11 Feb 2011 02:28:17 +0000http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/?p=4990#comment-22290[…] “The Bush Frame: Us vs. Them; Good vs. Evil; Intentions vs. Consequences,” […]
]]>By: The End of “Us vs. Them” « dlPFChttps://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/the-bush-frame-us-vs-them-good-vs-evil-intentions-vs-consequences/#comment-14462
Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:46:29 +0000http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/?p=4990#comment-14462[…] fundamental worldview can easily be defined: us vs. them. As Scoblic writes, this frame has a long history in […]
]]>By: On the Importance of Words « dlPFChttps://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/the-bush-frame-us-vs-them-good-vs-evil-intentions-vs-consequences/#comment-14112
Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:10:46 +0000http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/?p=4990#comment-14112[…] as Jon Hanson at The Situationist recently observed, If “moral clarity” requires insisting that there are just two forces — good and evil — and […]
]]>By: thwood3https://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/the-bush-frame-us-vs-them-good-vs-evil-intentions-vs-consequences/#comment-14074
Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:04:54 +0000http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/?p=4990#comment-14074I would like to suggest that dispositionism is not all bad and actually a very necessary component of social cognition (but very problematic in excess).

Dispositionism is something we cannot eliminate from social thought. It is the attributional style that makes it possible to hold people responsible for their actions. Insofar as responsibility is necessary for social cooperation and coordination, dispositionism is a good thing. But it must recognize reasonable and pragmatic limits. That’s where exclusively dispositionists fail. Walking an ambiguous and narrow line between dispositionally holding people responsible and situationally excusing them is psychologically difficult. People wish for “moral clarity” because it’s easy and reassuring to think that “moral clarity” exists and because it’s just plain easier to think dichotomously, judgmentally, and dogmatically.

But remember that civilization would not be possible without dispositional thinking. We’d never be able to cooperate and coordinate social behavior absent dispositional attributions. Another way of describing dispositionism is “theory of mind” or Dennet’s “intentional stance.” No one would suggest eliminating, nor could anyone practically forego, slipping into the intentional stance. It’s at the core of being a human being. So its a matter of tempering our dispositional dispositions!

Dispositionism and situationism are always in tension and always will be. I’d like to see this fact given more attention on this blog. Sometimes it’s referred to as “the internal situation.” That seems a little disingenuous and misleading. Please admit and confront that dispositionism is unavoidable and not necessarily a bad thing but simply a problematic legacy and component of social cognition.

]]>By: Mark B.https://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/the-bush-frame-us-vs-them-good-vs-evil-intentions-vs-consequences/#comment-14073
Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:20:37 +0000http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/?p=4990#comment-14073I often wonder about the situation that contributed to Bush’s dispositionalism or more importantly his “ignorance and arrogance”. Bush didn’t exist in a vacuum and his situation must have contributed to his actions — even if he thinks it is his moral clarity.
]]>By: smellytouristhttps://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/the-bush-frame-us-vs-them-good-vs-evil-intentions-vs-consequences/#comment-14071
Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:54:47 +0000http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/?p=4990#comment-14071America is exceptional, and the best country in the world. Go Bush.http://www.smellytourist.wordpress.com
]]>